The Fragile Alliance: From Shared Rule to Absolute Power

The early Han Dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE) emerged from the ashes of the Chu-Han Contention, a brutal civil war following the collapse of the Qin Empire. Liu Bang, later Emperor Gaozu, owed his victory largely to three formidable allies: the brilliant strategist Han Xin, the guerrilla warfare master Peng Yue, and the formidable general Ying Bu. These men controlled vast territories under the “shared empire” (共天下) principle proposed by strategist Zhang Liang—a temporary power-sharing arrangement necessary to defeat their common enemy, Xiang Yu of Chu.

By 202 BCE, with Xiang Yu’s suicide at Gaixia, Liu Bang claimed the imperial throne. However, the very system that enabled his triumph now threatened his vision of a centralized “family empire” (家天下). The emperor faced a dilemma: how to dismantle the feudal structure without triggering rebellion. His solution—a gradual erosion of his allies’ power—would unfold through calculated political maneuvers and, ultimately, violent purges.

The First Target: Han Xin’s Tragic Downfall

### The General Who Made an Emperor
Han Xin’s military genius was unparalleled. His northern campaign (205–203 BCE) secured critical territories, including the conquest of Qi—a victory that indirectly freed Empress Lü from seven years as Xiang Yu’s hostage. Yet this very success made him dangerous. In a revealing moment after Xiang Yu’s death, Liu Bang personally entered Han Xin’s camp at Dingtao and stripped him of his army, demoting him from King of Qi to King of Chu (201 BCE).

### The Trap Closes
The purge escalated in 197 BCE when Chen Xi, a trusted commander guarding the northern frontier, rebelled after being investigated for maintaining a private army. Empress Lü seized the opportunity. Exploiting Han Xin’s trust in chancellor Xiao He—the man who originally recommended him—she lured the general to the Changle Palace under false pretenses. Without trial, Han Xin was executed in the palace’s bell chamber.

Liu Bang’s reaction upon returning from suppressing Chen Xi’s rebellion speaks volumes: “He felt both joy and pity” (且喜且怜之). The emperor’s relief outweighed any remorse, confirming the purge aligned with his unspoken wishes.

Peng Yue: The Guerrilla King’s Unraveling

### The Backbone of Chu-Han Strategy
Peng Yue’s contributions were tactical masterstrokes:
1. Cutting Xiang Yu’s supply lines at Xiapi (204 BCE)
2. Capturing 17 cities including Suiyang (203 BCE)
3. Delivering the final blow at Gaixia (202 BCE)

### A Fatal Miscalculation
In 196 BCE, when Liu Bang demanded Peng Yue personally lead troops against Chen Xi, the aging warlord repeated his earlier tactic—sending subordinates while pleading illness. This time, the political climate had changed. An informant’s accusation (likely coerced) led to Peng Yue’s arrest. Initially exiled to Sichuan, his desperate appeal to Empress Lü proved catastrophic. She convinced Liu Bang that exile risked future rebellion, resulting in Peng Yue’s gruesome execution—his body minced into meat paste and distributed to vassals as a warning.

The Machinery of Elimination

### Empress Lü’s Ruthless Calculus
The empress operated with chilling efficiency:
1. Preemptive Strikes: Eliminating potential threats before Liu Bang’s death
2. Legal Theater: Fabricating charges through coerced confessions
3. Psychological Warfare: Using Peng Yue’s remains to intimidate Ying Bu

### Liu Bang’s Hidden Hand
Contemporary historian Sima Qian’s records suggest tacit coordination:
– The emperor gradually weakened targets (demoting Han Xin to marquis) while letting Lü deliver final blows
– This preserved Liu Bang’s reputation while achieving his goals

The Systemic Roots of the Purges

### Contradictions of the Early Han System
1. Power Distribution: 60% of territory remained under semi-independent kings
2. Institutional Memory: Warlords remembered the loose Zhou Dynasty feudal structure
3. Succession Concerns: Liu Bang’s heir (later Emperor Hui) was young and untested

### The Three Faction Balance
Liu Bang deliberately cultivated competing power centers:
1. Imperial Clan: His sons as regional kings
2. Meritocratic Elite: Officials like Xiao He and Zhang Liang
3. Lü Clan: Empress Lü’s relatives

As Song Dynasty historian Lü Zuqian observed: “Keeping Empress Lü checked the meritocrats; keeping meritocrats checked Empress Lü”—a delicate equilibrium ensuring neither could dominate.

Enduring Historical Questions

### Were the Charges Justified?
Sima Qian presents conflicting evidence:
– Han Xin allegedly plotted with Chen Xi, yet was unarmed when killed
– Peng Yue explicitly rejected rebellion proposals

### The Gender Dynamics of Power
Empress Lü’s unprecedented political role reflected:
1. Her hostage experience hardening her resolve
2. Liu Bang’s need for a ruthless executor
3. The systemic exclusion of women from formal power channels

Legacy: The Template for Imperial Succession Crises

These purges established patterns recurring throughout Chinese history:
1. Founder’s Dilemma: Revolutionary allies becoming post-victory liabilities
2. Proxy Executioners: Empresses/dowagers acting where emperors hesitated
3. Institutionalized Distrust: The subsequent “Commandery-County” system centralized military power

The 196 BCE double purge particularly impacted later dynasties. When Ming Taizu Zhu Yuanzhang eliminated his generals in the 14th century, he explicitly referenced Liu Bang’s precedent. Even modern revolutionary movements would grapple with this foundational tension between collective struggle and centralized control.

The tragedy of Han Xin and Peng Yue thus transcends individual betrayal—it represents the inevitable clash between the chaotic forces that forge empires and the rigid structures required to sustain them. Their stories, preserved in vivid detail by Sima Qian, continue to resonate as cautionary tales about power’s corrupting nature and revolution’s cyclical fate.